Skeptic finds 4 year Bigfoot project "intriguing"
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
- Status
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"Several components of the body of evidence make the wood ape mystery worthy of ongoing scrutiny.
These would include:
1. The database of eyewitness reports of huge, hair-covered, upright, human-shaped mammals, or their tracks — now numbering over 3000
Track casts on display.
reports and distributed over a period of over 150 years.
2. Remarkably consistent physical descriptions of these creatures, including, in some cases, anatomical details.
3. The sincerity and credibility of eyewitnesses, some of whom are law enforcement officers and experienced outdoor workers such as wildlife and fisheries officials, combined with the reluctance of these eyewitnesses to be recognized or credited for their reports.
4. The similarity of physical and behavioral descriptions to an upright, bipedal version of well-known (possibly related) animals: the known great apes. Wood apes are typically described as huge, hair-covered, human-shaped animals with a short, thick neck. They differ from upright bears primarily in having a flat face and shoulders that are prominently broad or squarish rather than tapered or sloping.
5. The expanding collection of over 100 different track casts catalogued and archived at Idaho State University by anatomy professor Jeffrey Meldrum and available for examination.
6. Ecologically significant correlations between sighting locations and habitat characteristics.
7. Hair samples collected under compelling circumstances that appear to be from an undocumented species.
Panel of comparitive hair samples, including an unidentified primate sample from Oklahoma.
8. The 1967 film obtained by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California, along with the supporting evidence and onsite follow-up investigations. No one has demonstrated convincing arguments or recreations that begin to cast serious doubt on the validity of the animal shown in the film. Two images, in the possession of the NAWAC, of a wood ape photographed in Oklahoma bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos). http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos
A frame from the Patterson-Gimlin footage, filmed in October 1967 in northern California. Critics say it was faked; proponents say there's no way it was faked. Every attempt to prove it was a hoax or recreate it has been unsuccessful.
9. Recorded vocalizations thought to be of wood ape origin that have not yet been identified by bioacoustics experts.
Native American art rendition of a sasquatch's face.
10. Ubiquitous Native American and First Nations accounts of upright ape-like creatures that predate U.S. history, along with newspaper articles dating to colonial times relating sightings of large hairy ape-like creatures.Group members and advisors have documented forms of evidence, such as those described above, in the NAWAC's focus region. This evidence includes traditional Native American lore, track finds, hair, and vocalizations. Perhaps most compelling, at least to the individuals involved, are the visual contacts made by members in the course of conducting field investigations. Such experiences serve to motivate and sustain members during the arduous and costly process of searching for and documenting sasquatch-related evidence."===http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/evidence
These would include:
1. The database of eyewitness reports of huge, hair-covered, upright, human-shaped mammals, or their tracks — now numbering over 3000
Track casts on display.
reports and distributed over a period of over 150 years.
2. Remarkably consistent physical descriptions of these creatures, including, in some cases, anatomical details.
3. The sincerity and credibility of eyewitnesses, some of whom are law enforcement officers and experienced outdoor workers such as wildlife and fisheries officials, combined with the reluctance of these eyewitnesses to be recognized or credited for their reports.
4. The similarity of physical and behavioral descriptions to an upright, bipedal version of well-known (possibly related) animals: the known great apes. Wood apes are typically described as huge, hair-covered, human-shaped animals with a short, thick neck. They differ from upright bears primarily in having a flat face and shoulders that are prominently broad or squarish rather than tapered or sloping.
5. The expanding collection of over 100 different track casts catalogued and archived at Idaho State University by anatomy professor Jeffrey Meldrum and available for examination.
6. Ecologically significant correlations between sighting locations and habitat characteristics.
7. Hair samples collected under compelling circumstances that appear to be from an undocumented species.
Panel of comparitive hair samples, including an unidentified primate sample from Oklahoma.
8. The 1967 film obtained by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California, along with the supporting evidence and onsite follow-up investigations. No one has demonstrated convincing arguments or recreations that begin to cast serious doubt on the validity of the animal shown in the film. Two images, in the possession of the NAWAC, of a wood ape photographed in Oklahoma bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos). http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos
A frame from the Patterson-Gimlin footage, filmed in October 1967 in northern California. Critics say it was faked; proponents say there's no way it was faked. Every attempt to prove it was a hoax or recreate it has been unsuccessful.
9. Recorded vocalizations thought to be of wood ape origin that have not yet been identified by bioacoustics experts.
Native American art rendition of a sasquatch's face.
10. Ubiquitous Native American and First Nations accounts of upright ape-like creatures that predate U.S. history, along with newspaper articles dating to colonial times relating sightings of large hairy ape-like creatures.Group members and advisors have documented forms of evidence, such as those described above, in the NAWAC's focus region. This evidence includes traditional Native American lore, track finds, hair, and vocalizations. Perhaps most compelling, at least to the individuals involved, are the visual contacts made by members in the course of conducting field investigations. Such experiences serve to motivate and sustain members during the arduous and costly process of searching for and documenting sasquatch-related evidence."===http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/evidence
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Ya, a biochemist admitted he didn't understand what he was looking at and then said it is bigfoot. And then declared that because the DNA samples were in fact of Homo sapiens, so they are humans.. Because that makes sense.
Just as it makes sense and doesn't sound weird or dodgy that she created two websites, called them journals and "published" her so called study in those to try to give her report some sense of authenticity. One site no longer exists and the other website only she can use.
Geneticists who did put their name to their reviews (such as the one from Princeton) advised that her claims were completely unfounded.
I'll put it into simple terms for you.
Ketchum claimed that 15,000 ago, giant apes had sex with white women in America. The DNA she found and the mitochondrial DNA was of a white European woman, not of a Native American (or woman of Asian ancestry), who were living in America during that time. The unknown 1% she claims came from a giant primate. Apparently these giant apes were only into white women and not Native American women. And according to her study, white Homo sapien males were not mating with female giant apes.
There are a couple of issues with this claim.
1) No giant hominids ever existed, certainly not in America.
2) No white European women were in America 15,000 ago.
3) The only way cross breeding could have occurred is if the two species were compatible. This means that the hominid would have to be exceptionally close cousins and this would show up in the DNA. It does not. At all. And if they were to be believed, a hairy giant ape (that still has gorilla like features) would not be compatible to breed with Homo sapiens (ie modern man). This is basic biology that one learns in high school. It would be like getting a gorilla to breed with a rhesus monkey. While they may belong to the same primate family, does not mean they can breed with each other.
4) If there were to have been enough bigfoot to have survived to this day, there would have to have been extensive interbreeding and cohabitation. There is no evidence anywhere, in ancient human settlements that have been discovered in the US to support this. At all. This does not even touch on the fact that Europeans had not even started to migrate to America or the North American continent at that point in time.
Her study was bogus MR. From the way in which she tried to deceive people in how she published it, to self publishing it on her own newly created website and charging $30 a pop for it, to her using her own lab to test the samples and getting a biochemist (who apparently works in the renewable resources sector) to verify it after he admitted he didn't understand what he was even looking at or anything at all about what he was reading, to the very claims she made which are, frankly, ridiculous and downright false and impossible.
If the mitochontrial DNA is identical to Homo sapiens (i.e., modern humans), then this suggests one of two options. The first, endorsed by Ketchum, is that Bigfoot ancestors had sex with women about 15,000 years ago and created a half-human hybrid species currently hiding across North America. [Rumor or Reality: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]
There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum's team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world's top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training.
Confirming it's Bigfoot
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from a Bigfoot? Did they take a blood or saliva sample from a living Bigfoot? If so, how did they get that close, and why didn't they simply capture it or photograph it? If the samples were found in the wild, how do they know it wasn't left by another animal — or possibly even a hunter, hiker or camper who left human genetic material?
Previous alleged Bigfoot samples subjected to DNA analysis have been deemed "unknown" or "unidentified." However, "unknown" or "unidentified" results do not mean "Bigfoot." There are many reasons why a DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, so by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match.
There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum's team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world's top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training.
Confirming it's Bigfoot
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from a Bigfoot? Did they take a blood or saliva sample from a living Bigfoot? If so, how did they get that close, and why didn't they simply capture it or photograph it? If the samples were found in the wild, how do they know it wasn't left by another animal — or possibly even a hunter, hiker or camper who left human genetic material?
Previous alleged Bigfoot samples subjected to DNA analysis have been deemed "unknown" or "unidentified." However, "unknown" or "unidentified" results do not mean "Bigfoot." There are many reasons why a DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, so by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Spare me your amateur speculations on whether a humanoid primate and a human primate could ever mate. Ofcourse they could've. And ofcourse there could have been giant hominids in North America. Like already showed you, we don't have the bones of every hominid that has ever existed. So let's just stick to the paper here. This goes to the ridiculous claim that all 110 DNA samples were contaminated:
I am growing weary of reading the same criticisms of the DNA Study. Here are the top two "complaints"
Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center,
1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008
SeqWright, Inc.,
2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033
Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics,
College Station, TX 77843-2257
Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences
2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207
This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities:
Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (Performed the structural analysis using electron microscopy)
Genomics Core Laboratory at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) (Performed the Whole Human Genome SNP analysis)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - (Performed - Whole Genome Sequencing)
The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb” Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so!
The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above.
It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism."====http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-dna-study-critics-read-study.html
As for your quoted paragraphs from "expert" Benjamin Radford, well, we all know how HE makes his paycheck don't we?
"Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra and Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com."
I am growing weary of reading the same criticisms of the DNA Study. Here are the top two "complaints"
- "To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," - Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University
- "All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant" -
ArsTechnica.com
Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center,
1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008
SeqWright, Inc.,
2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033
Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics,
College Station, TX 77843-2257
Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences
2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207
This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities:
Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (Performed the structural analysis using electron microscopy)
Genomics Core Laboratory at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) (Performed the Whole Human Genome SNP analysis)
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - (Performed - Whole Genome Sequencing)
The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb” Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so!
The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above.
It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism."====http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-dna-study-critics-read-study.html
As for your quoted paragraphs from "expert" Benjamin Radford, well, we all know how HE makes his paycheck don't we?
"Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra and Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com."
Last edited:
So now they are fast enough to chase down and kill squirrels, chickens, deer, and elk? And strong enough to take on bears?
This is getting more and more outrageous by the minute...
http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/elk
Animal Speeds
Brown Bear - 35kph (about 22mph)
Grizzley Bear - 56kph (about 35mph)
Elk - 72kph (about 45mph)
Whitetail Deer - 47kph (about 30mph)
By compare - Usain Bolt, widely called the Fastest Human in the world... tops out at a mere 37kph (23mph)
Now, there is a good reason for this - bipedal locomotion using a reverse bending knee (ergo, the knee is jointed to bend towards the rear of the body) is great for the kind of slow gate across uneven and unstable terrain. It isn't so good for high speed runs - this is why virtually every other bipedal animal has a forward bending knee joint (such as the Emu/ostrich, lizards such as the Frilled Lizard, etc). This allows for greater speed.
So... please, explain to me how in the hell you expect a "gorilla/human crossover" to catch an ELK...?
Okay, but that doesn't explain where they get these from during WINTER... or are they able to eat frozen roots and nonexistent berries (or do they have magical bushes that produce berries during winter?)
They take animals hunters have killed? And the hunters don't shoot and kill them? I don't know about you... but most of the hunters I know would pump several rounds into anything trying to steal their kill... especially a strange apeman thing.
And how do they catch them? With the exception of clams, all those animals should be able to easily outrun and evade them...
Given that there have been supposed sightings during winter, it would seem they don't. So, how do they maintain their diet during winter?
Because during winter, most of those food sources disappear or become unavailable...? Because maintaining any kind of genetically viable population of such a creature for any length of time would almost necessitate it?
And speaking of... I notice you have ignored Bells comments about genetic viability...
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
http://ask.metafilter.com/146045/Minimum-species-population-to-ensure-adequate-genetic-diversity
Unless there are at least a hundred or so of these Bigfoot things able to intermingle and mate... they would eventually suffer too much genetic degradation from inbreeding and, well, they become genetically nonviable...
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Shouldn't be that hard to get this revolutionary discovery published then. I mean, they want it to be all official, right?
Bells
Staff member
The only way they could have possibly mated and reproduced is if they were closely related.
We are talking about a giant ape that had long fur all over its body like a gorilla. Have you ever looked at the human family tree, MR? Ever? The last hairy ape look in our family tree became extinct about 2.5 million years ago. They became extinct. And no, just because both are primates does not mean that they can breed. We are talking about a so called species of hominid that still looks like a hairy gorilla, that is completely different to what modern human beings look like or are like. It isn't possible.
I'll put it this way. What Ketchum suggested is tantamount to a woman having sex with a chimpanzee or gorilla and claiming she gave birth to its offspring. We know that is not biologically possible.
Any giant hominid or giant hairy ape that was apparently living with and breeding with human beings would have left a trace. Because they would have been cohabiting with humans and the early human settlements showed no trace of any other hominids. At all.
Where would these giant hominids have come from?
And when did they get to America? And where did they live? According to Ketchum, their males were breeding with European females in America 15,000 years ago. There were no European females in America 15,000 years ago. At all. So where did the European female DNA she claims proves bigfoot came from? Considering everyone involved in this study were white of white European stock, it isn't far fetched to say that contamination did occur.
There is also the fact that these giant hairy hominids did not mate with Native American women and that the giant hairy female hominids did not breed with human males. Why not? How can that be? If they were cohabiting and breeding, why was it all only one way?
And frankly, you are yet to explain how a half tonne giant hairy primate was able to actually have sex with a human female. She does not address this either.
Then of course comes the bigger question. What happened to these giant primate hominids? Because for bigfoot to be able to continue to exist for this long, there would have been extensive breeding with these giant hominids for an extended period of time. What then happened to them? Why is there absolutely no trace of their existence anywhere - not from Africa, not from what would have been their migration out of Africa, not through Asia and not over through to America and in America itself. These things supposedly existed 15,000 years ago. There would have been traces.
And another matter.. Why didn't these giant hairy hominids head into Europe or into Australia?
If these giant hairy hominids were breeding with human beings, they would have bred with the humans that existed in Asia on their way through to America. And those traces would exist today in the native population in Asia, Australia and the Pacific region. There is no trace that they did. There is trace that our early ancestors bred with the much smaller hominids which existed in Asia. But nothing else. The people who live today carry the traces of the inter-breeding that occurred way back then. If humans were breeding with giant hairy primates, it would show up in our DNA. It does not. Can you account for that? Or do you believe that Ketchum is trying to say that it was the males who wanted to have sex with white women and not the other way around? Because that is essentially what she has said. That white European women apparently existed in the US 15,000 years ago and had sex with giant hairy apes.
As I noted earlier, the fact that some DNA is unknown can easily be explained by the fact that they did not have samples of all animals in their labs. Another independent lab that tested the so called "unknown" result came back with a positive opossum DNA.
So they are either incompetent - and the way they presented this report supports this, or they are lying.
And as many of us have pointed out and even bigfoot researchers have pointed out, the people involved in that study are failing to answer many questions, such as how an unknown giant hairy ape was able to breed with a European woman in the US when Europeans had not even arrived in America at that point?
AS for the "submitters".. They are all involved in proving bigfoot. And they are clearly incompetent and cannot even structure sentences properly. Because they are making claims which are wholly unfounded and with no basis in reality. They have no physical evidence and their so called DNA samples they are working with are clearly contaminated. They also fail to disclose how and where these samples were collected and by whom.
Not to mention the person they had peer review it couldn't even understand what they were saying.
They clearly failed. Because they are claiming that male bigfoot was having having sex with white European women in America 15,000 years ago.
There were no white Europeans in America 15,000 years ago.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Like I said already, we don't have a complete record of all the hominid species. So don't even pretend to lecture me on what was around 2.5 million years ago. The evolutionary tree of hominids is far from complete, as we add more and more species to it with every passing decade. Interbreeding between hominid species is entirely possible, and the DNA evidence proves it.
Noone said they were living with humans. And as I already pointed out, Gigantopithecus existed as late as 100,000 years ago and all we have of it are teeth. So there most certainly could have been large hominid primates that existed back then but that we just haven't found fossils of yet.
Over the land bridge from China. Does Gigantopithecus ring a bell?
Who cares? Why is that even of bearing on the present existence of Bigfoot?
What are you talking about? Where does she say it was breeding with European females 15,000 years ago? And where did you hear about it being a white woman?
Guess we'll learn all that when the scientific elite get off their dead asses and start researching this like their supposed to. lol!.
They went extinct like all are hominid cousins did. So what? It has nothing to do with the existence of Bigfoot.
I'm tired of repeating this, but like I showed you, we do not have a complete fossil record of all the hominid species that ever existed. I showed you this with Gigantopithecus of which we only have teeth of. Why is this not sinking in for you? So ofcourse there could have existed a hominid primate that interbred with humans. We even suspect Neanderthal did this. So the thesis is entirely plausible.
LOL! Who knows? Who cares?
No..humans would not be carrying the DNA of the hominids they bred with. Bigfoot would, or Yeti, or any of the other species of hairy bidpedal primate that lives all over our planet.
I'll need a quote for that. Where does she say this?
Ketchum already addressed that alleged possum test. They only took random segments of the DNA, and that was it. Then they wouldn't even return her calls. The test was a sham and a complete set up to make Ketchum look like a fool in order to sell more copies of the Houston Chronicle. Newspaper article writers are good at that.
The whole team of medical experts, as well as the 6 DNA labs and university labs that sequenced the 110 samples, could neither be incompetent nor liars. There is no motivation to lie. There was nothing for them to gain from lying, and everything to lose from being truthful. Hence the vicious slanders and attacks against them since their results have been published. Noone in the scientific community likes their boat rocked with earthshaking discoveries.
I haven't heard that complaint from anyone yet besides you. Where are you getting this from? Post your source that she claimed this was the case.
Right..so the doctorates who research bigfoot out in the wild and collect samples according to lab protocol must be incompetent. End of story. How does that follow? How in the world does researching and working in a field of study make you incompetent in that very field? I'd call them the experts.
No..that is what YOU are claiming. I have yet to see where they have made this claim at all.
Here's PROOF all you Yeti deniers!
=============
Study: Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3 (2004)
The study reported in this article represents scientifically rigorous assessment of conflict between the published morphological characters and newly obtained molecular characters for species of questionable validity.
http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/yeti.html
==============
Bells
Staff member
If there was a giant hominid that weighed half a tonne, it would have dominated all others and would have affected all others in that we would not be here. Understand now? If a close human relative was that big, they would be the dominant species. And the only way for interbreeding to have occurred is if they were a very close relative to Homo sapiens.
And if they lived as little as 15,000 years ago, then there would have been many many traces of them. Understand now? Especially if they were cohabiting with humans and interbreeding with them. Do you understand the timeline now?
Ketchum has claimed that 15,000 years ago, a giant primate that is apparently close enough to humans to breed with them, were in America and bred with European females. That is what she found in the DNA or claims to have found. Well, the giant primate part is different since that is what they found to be an unknown species. That is literally what she found in the mitochondrial DNA. Hence the absolute skepticism from even researchers who believe in bigfoot. Because if she is claiming the mitochondrial DNA samples she was using was that of European females, then it means the whole study was tainted because there were no Europeans in America at that point in time.
When she claimed it was a human hybrid, and when she claimed the majority of the DNA was that of humans, then it was very clear that it was contaminated.
If they were having sex with humans, and if the females were having sex with their males, then they were living close enough to interbreed. Some form of cohabitation or living in very close quarters would have had to have occurred. The Gigantopithecus was like a giant gorilla. Not even in the scope of what she is declaring. And they lived in Asia. She is claiming these giant hominids somehow or other migrated out of Africa at the same time as Homo sapiens did and interbred with them. And that this apparently happened in America.
So which human beings were they interbreeding with? And where? And how? If they were large, and they would have been large, how is it even physically possible? And going by what you have been claiming about bigfoot, they are large hairy beasts, that smell terribly of wet horse and the images provided shows something more connected to a gorilla - not at all even remotely close to a Homo sapien. So how can something that is so far from human beings as a species, be able to breed with them? It isn't even possible.
Which never came across and were extinct before humans made that crossing. Does that ring a bell? Or are you going to try to rewrite humane evolution and migration out of Africa to make it suit your personal beliefs?
Because it has everything to do with the existence of bigfoot.
Or do you think they magically appeared here?
The results of her Mitochondrial DNA tests showed European females from 15,000 years ago. Are you plugging a report you didn't even read? In short, if a large primate was mating with human women in America, they would have been the descendants of the Asian women who are the ancestors of Native Americans. Not Europeans.
They already did and said the same thing we have all been saying to you and you refuse to listen. What she is proposing is literally impossible.
It has everything to do with the existence of bigfoot.
Here was a supposedly huge primate that was having sex and interbreeding with human females and then they suddenly disappeared and their descendants apparently retreated to the bush and lived on to this day. They would have had to have had a very large number of offspring to be able to support a population that big and not have died out. And yet, zero trace of these hybrid children. Worse still, they are still acting like chimpanzees and not as advanced as the humans they came from. And this was only 15,000 years ago.
Bells
Staff member
Pt 2
Yes, we do carry the genetic markers of others who came before us. Hence why they are able to track human migration through mitochondrial DNA. Hence why they were able to isolate traces of other hominids in just about half the human population on Earth, because they did interbreed with our very very close cousins through Asia and Europe. If the males were mating with human females, as Ketchum claims, then it stands to reason that human males were mating with the giant primate females. And yet, according to Ketchum, there isn't a trace of it. Which makes no sense. So what? We are meant to believe that these giant primates were having sex with human females, had many many children and those children did not integrate with the human population and did not mate with them further? That they somehow or other all went bush while the humans went another way?
And her response on her facebook was to declare there was a conspiracy against her. She only tested for common animals.
She did not test for opossum.
She might have had a team of medical experts in the labs, but they were not the ones collecting the DNA.
It is ridiculous that she tried to pass this off as legitimate.
The majority of the samples came from people who just sent stuff in to her. She even names and what they sent in on her website. Didn't you even read her website?
And yet we have full skeletons of hominids that existed well before these so called giant hominids. And not a single trace of something that lived up to just around 15,000 years ago? Come on MR, surely you cannot be so gullible as that?
Have you read nothing at all about human evolution and the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa? Did you not even learn this in biology? Or did you go to a religious school were creationism was taught? Because the way you are arguing in this thread, it has all the hallmarks of a creationist education and not a science based education.
Are you suggesting that humans today do not carry any of the markers that show interbreeding with other hominid species? Well, European, Asian, Aboriginal and Pacific Islanders must be vastly different.
Yes, we do carry the genetic markers of others who came before us. Hence why they are able to track human migration through mitochondrial DNA. Hence why they were able to isolate traces of other hominids in just about half the human population on Earth, because they did interbreed with our very very close cousins through Asia and Europe. If the males were mating with human females, as Ketchum claims, then it stands to reason that human males were mating with the giant primate females. And yet, according to Ketchum, there isn't a trace of it. Which makes no sense. So what? We are meant to believe that these giant primates were having sex with human females, had many many children and those children did not integrate with the human population and did not mate with them further? That they somehow or other all went bush while the humans went another way?
Well it is apparently in the DNA she presented in her study. The mitochondrial DNA was European. She even mentions the Solutrean theory on her site in connection to this study.
They looked at all her samples.
And her response on her facebook was to declare there was a conspiracy against her. She only tested for common animals.
The study, which used 111 samples of alleged Bigfoot hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissues attached, were collected by dozens of people from 34 sites around North America. Hairs were compared to reference samples from common animals including human, dog, cow, horse, deer, elk, moose, fox, bear, coyote, and wolf, and were said not to match any of them.
She did not test for opossum.
You still don't get it.. Her study was dodgy. Then how she published it was even dodgier. She withdrew her study from peer review and then self published on websites she created herself and tried to pass them off as being legitimate journals. Do you not see just how terrible that is? At all?
She might have had a team of medical experts in the labs, but they were not the ones collecting the DNA.
The most likely interpretation is that the samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens (mostly Bigfoot buffs with little or no forensic evidence-gathering training) accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough.
Though the study claims that "throughout this project exhaustive precautions were taken to minimize or eliminate contamination" in the laboratory, the likelihood that the samples were contaminated in the field by careless collection methods, normal environmental degradation, and other factors was not addressed. In some cases the person(s) submitting the alleged Bigfoot sample also contributed a sample of their own DNA to help rule out contamination, but the possibility of DNA contamination by others (such as hunters or hikers) could not be ruled out.
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from Bigfoot? Well, they didn't; the report details where Bigfoot samples were retrieved: "hair found on tree" and "hair found on wire fence" are typical. In other words, the people collecting the samples didn't see what animal left it there, possibly weeks or months earlier—but if it seemed suspicious it might be Bigfoot.
Though the study claims that "throughout this project exhaustive precautions were taken to minimize or eliminate contamination" in the laboratory, the likelihood that the samples were contaminated in the field by careless collection methods, normal environmental degradation, and other factors was not addressed. In some cases the person(s) submitting the alleged Bigfoot sample also contributed a sample of their own DNA to help rule out contamination, but the possibility of DNA contamination by others (such as hunters or hikers) could not be ruled out.
How did the team definitively determine that the samples were from Bigfoot? Well, they didn't; the report details where Bigfoot samples were retrieved: "hair found on tree" and "hair found on wire fence" are typical. In other words, the people collecting the samples didn't see what animal left it there, possibly weeks or months earlier—but if it seemed suspicious it might be Bigfoot.
It is ridiculous that she tried to pass this off as legitimate.
Then you clearly have not been reading the links provided.
They weren't the ones collecting the samples.
The majority of the samples came from people who just sent stuff in to her. She even names and what they sent in on her website. Didn't you even read her website?
Then perhaps you should read the links that are provided.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Right..just like giant bears or mammoths would be the dominate species because they were so much bigger than us. lol! Bigness has nothing to do with being the dominate species. It's a matter of intelligence and the ability to use tools along with sheer numbers of population.
Once again repeating the same old faulty assumption: we don't have all the bones of every hominid species that existed. They could very well have existed and we just haven't come up with their bones yet. Also, noone says they were cohabitating with humans. You're just raising strawmen because you have nothing left to argue here.
All I've seen are your claims about what she claims. I take that with a grain of salt having seen your deplorable inability to reason in these posts of yours. Why are you so obsessed with the theory part of the DNA study anyway? Don't you have anything else to say against the study of the samples themselves? It's like you are trying to divert from the real substance of the results here.
Doesn't mean they cohabited. Could be that women were abducted or raped by these hominids, which spawned a race of humanoid bipedal hominids such as we see in Bigfoot. As for the details of what else she claims, I have yet to see you confirm that. Why can't you quote her statements on this? It's very easy to cut and paste.
Neanderthals were larger and built very different from us and yet mated with us. So it isn't inconceivable a humanoid hominid could do the same. Have you ever even seen a gorilla penis? It's only about an inch and a half long.
You don't know if they never came across. You're just pulling crap out of your ass now. We only have some teeth in China indicating the existence of Gigantopithecus. We have no idea as to its migration pattern.
Your whole argument fallacy here is one from personal incredulity. That because you can't understand how something happened, it must therefore be untrue. That is not a valid form of argumentation. We have no idea how Bigfoot evolved yet. Only by gathering more samples and discovering more hominid bones will we be able to answer the questions lineage and migration.
If the DNA shows a mitochondrial European lineage, it certainly suggests mating at some point. When and exactly where it occurred is irrelevant for the purposes of proving the existence of Bigfoot.
No they didn't. She couldn't get anyone to peer review her study in any accepted journal. She was basically blackballed and ostracized by the scientific community.
No it doesn't. If bigfoot exists, it doesn't mean we will have worked out how he evolved or migrated in advance. That all comes later, AFTER we establish the existence of said creature.
You don't know that they were "acting like chimpanzees". Obviously Bigfoot is more advanced than they are based on the evidence we have gained about them so far. So we are talking about a hominid that may be just a little less intelligent than humans, but which we have not found bones of simply because they lived in forested regions where it difficult to uncover fossils from 10's of thousands of years ago.
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I guess that settles it. It BS.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The only gullibility is your own for thinking we have a complete fossil record of all the hominids that ever existed. How could you possibly think something like that?
And here we go with the personal insults about my lack of education. Are you getting frustrated now?
The lineage created from interbreeding would not be a human anymore. It'd be Bigfoot. Surely you understand this.
You create your own problems with your own unwarranted assumptions. If human females were abducted and enslaved by tribes of these giant hominids, there would be no cohabitation with humans. The resulting descendents would be hairy bipedal primates that would go off and form their own tribe eventually. Makes perfect sense...
Quote it please..
6 DNA labs did not turn up possum either. The alleged possum test was a scam based on random samplings of the DNA meant to discredit Ketchum's study. I already showed that.
If noone publishes your study, then publishing in your own journal is totally legit. I'm sure it happens all the time.
Maybe some samples, but not all 110 samples tested in 6 separate DNA labs and collected by strict lab protocol.
I'm not really interested in the fine details of how Bigfoot could theoretically have evolved. It doesn't have any bearing on the mountains of proof we already have of Bigfoot existing. This is your obsession, not mine.
Indeed... humans are the 'dominant species' only because we are capable of advanced industry, highly complex organization, and highly numerous... none of which Bigfoot seems to be.
We don't have ANY bones from a bigfoot though... you are making a false dichotomy by comparing the lack of ANY bigfoot skeletal pieces to the lack of a COMPLETE hominid skeleton. This is incredibly dishonest...
Funny, the only diversion I see is yours...
You really, REALLY need to take a few biology and genetics classes...
I don't care if you have a Gorilla and a Human co-habitate for years, or if the Gorilla rapes the human... neither one is going to produce any offspring, much less any viable offspring.
Have you seen what happens when you combine a Tiger and a Lion? You get a Liger... and it's awesome... it's also completely STERILE and incapable of reproducing.... this is important to note because a liger is a combination of the Panthera leo and the Panthera tigris... or, to make it simple:
Code:
Kingdom -----/----- Phylum -----/----- Class -----/----- Order -----/----- Family -----/----- Subfamily -----/----- Genus -----/----- Species-----/----- Subspecies
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Carnivora ------- Felidae ------------ Pantherinae -------- Panthera ------- P. Leo ------- P. L. Senegalensis - African Lion (Panthera Leo)
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Carnivora ------- Felidae ------------ Pantherinae -------- Panthera ------- P. tigris ----- P. T. Altaica - Tiger (Panthera Tigris)As you can see, very very similar... and yet, incapable of producing genetically viable offspring...
Now, to compare Humans and Gorillas (and lets addin Bonobo's for good measure)
Code:
Kingdom -----/----- Phylum -----/----- Class -----/----- Order -----/----- Family -----/----- Subfamily -----/----- Genus -----/----- Species -----/----- Subspecies
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Primates -------- Haplorhini -------- Hominidae --------- Homo --------- H. Sapiens ------ H. Sapiens Sapiens - Modern Human
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Primates -------- Haplorhini -------- Homininae -------- Gorilla --------- G. Beringei ----- G. Beringei Beringei (or G. Beringei Graueri) - Eastern Gorilla
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Primates -------- Haplorhini -------- Hominidae --------- Pan ------------- P. Paniscus ----- P. P. Paniscus - Pygmy Chimpanzee or BonoboSo... if a Lion and a Tiger cannot result in a viable offspring, and they are even in the same Genus... how would a Human and a Gorilla do so, when they aren't even in the same subfamily? Even IF they did have an offspring, said offspring would be incapable of breeding! For that matter, even a Bonobo would be incapable of doing so - same Subfamily, different genus!
From above, let us compare Homo Sapien Sapien to Neanderthals (or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
Kingdom -----/----- Phylum -----/----- Class -----/----- Order -----/----- Family -----/----- Subfamily -----/----- Genus -----/----- Species -----/----- Subspecies
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Primates -------- Haplorhini -------- Hominidae --------- Homo ------------ H. Sapiens ---- H. Sapiens Sapiens
Animalia ---------- Chordata ------- Mammalia ---- Primates -------- Haplorhini -------- Hominidae --------- Homo ------------ H. Sapiens --- H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis
Same species, different sub-species... much, MUCH closer than being different species, genus, and subfamily...
So, please, do explain how to rationalize and normalize these differences! Are you suggesting some sort of "magic" that allowed two vastly different creatures to mate and result in viable offspring?
You're right - we don't know if they came across... because we have no remains/evidence that they did so. That's how we know what DID come across. The onus is on YOUR to prove they did.
No, her argument (as is most peoples here) is that because it cannot be proven to be true, and there is a multitude of evidence to disprove it, then until it is proven true, it must be false.
Except it isn't irrelevant in the slightest... especially given how important genetic viability is for long-term species survival...
Uhm... no, not at all... in fact,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34395/title/Bigfoot-DNA-is-Bunk/
Leonid Kruglyak - Ph.D. in Physics @ Princeton University said:
And yet, we can take a Liger and dissect it's DNA to determine exactly what sub-species of big cat its parents were... we can trace a birds evolution via changes in anatomy and DNA... and yet, suddenly, like magic, this is impossible with a supposed Bigfoot sample? How convenient...
About as much sense as the ability for "tribes of giant hominids" to exist without being discovered, being able to bear fertile offspring, and having their bodies mysteriously vanish when they die...
That is to say, whatever your smoking must be some bad hooch.
Please post evidence that they were "scams"... oh, wait, you don't actually have any.
Thing is... it doesn't. For good reason... dishonesty being first among them.
In other words, you aren't interested in the TRUTH, just in your PET THEORY.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
YEAR: 1995
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 14
STATE: Oregon
COUNTY: Tillamook County
LOCATION DETAILS: [Removed from report]
NEAREST TOWN: Tillamook
NEAREST ROAD: 101
OBSERVED: Back several years ago, I reported this sighting to Peter Byrne, who took it very seriously. I agreed to talk on camera, to "Good Morning America" back in 1996. My conditions were that only my voice would be used, and not my name. They interviewed me, but then showed me completely. I felt betrayed by "Good Morning America".
I and my girlfriend were both in law enforcement at the time. I was, at the time, a US Forest Service Officer (Law Enforcement LVII) and later a police officer. Now I have been out of the field for 3 years, and I want to tell my story and show the photos.
On August 14, 1995, my girlfriend and I were camped on a beach in Oregon, north of Lincoln City and south of Tillamook. We were on vacation, and we were the only people on that beach.
We had a good fire going and dusk was approaching around 21:00 Hours. We were camped on a bluff about 7 ft above the surf and had a clear view of the beach north and south. We were set back on the bluff around 100 ft from the shoreline.
I noticed a figure which I thought was a person, standing south of us on the beach, I guess around 100 yards from our location, standing near the shoreline, looking in our direction. At that distance I thought it was strange the person was covered in black clothing, so we thought. I was a bit alarmed thinking someone may be planning to harm us. We also thought it was strange because nothing was down the beach except rugged beachline, to at least Lincoln City, 20 Miles to the south. When I lost sight of it I was a bit uneasy, wondering what the person was up to.
Later, we saw the person come back, but not stop. It kept walking in our direction, to a distance of about 50 yards. It stopped, turned around, and headed back to the south. Again, 5 minutes later, the person came back, this time it kept walking to a 90 degree angle to our location, and turned around and headed back south. By now the sun had set but the moon was full or close to it. It was a very bright twilight, with the sand and ocean.
The "person" in question again came back, following closer to the shoreline this time. It walked directly by us and past to the north now. We noticed the person was very large and seemed to be as tall as we were on the bluff. It was jet black and had the forward posture with the long swinging arms. We also noticed the person almost seemed totally uninterested in our presence and looked like it was looking for something on the beach, stopping occasionally and starting up again. The person turned around and went directly back at a quicker pace and headed at a fast walking speed (guessing 4-6 mph) to the south. We were amazed at how unusual the scene was. The pace, the fact the motion was more fluid, and not bouncing as we walk or jog. Also, all black. There was no other color, from head to toe. The head was pointy. The "person" now headed south quickly, and went out of sight.
I grabbed my mag-light and ran down to where my girlfriend told me to stop, so I knew where to look for prints. Just before that point I nearly tripped on a track, and was amazed at how deep it was. It was at least 10 inches down. I pressed down maybe a inch or two at most in the sand as I walked.
I yelled for my girlfriend to come down to see what I was looking at. She reluctantly came down. When she got close she immediately said, "Oh my God!" The tracks where at least 16" long and 10 inches wide. As we were focusing on the tracks, my mag-light went out. I told her not to worry. I had a spare bulb in the back of the flashlight. As I was fumbling to change the bulb, in bright moonlight, she yelled, "It's coming back!" I dropped the bulb in the sand and I just stared as it approached us at a fast rate. From the south, at 100 yards, at a fast clip.
She pulled my arm and tried to drag me back up to camp. I told her I was staying and wanted to find out what it was. She became frantic, screaming, "come on!!" as she headed to camp. I stood there and I was stunned. At a far distance of 80 yards or so, this thing was taller then me, at a level field. As it got closer I started yelling "You better stop! I am going to shoot!" I was unarmed. It kept coming, directly at me, like I didn't exist. Its shoulders seemed to be at least 4-5 ft wide, with no neck. I started to notice hair all over, and started to make out the face. At that point I realized, and I said out loud, "Oh My God, it's not a human!" I couldn't move for a moment. When I got control again I ran like hell, toward my girlfriend, who was screaming, "Run!" I ran fast, thinking it was coming for me.
I got to the top, and was happy to see it kept walking past where I had been standing. It walked beyond where I was standing, then turned around and walked back to the south, out of sight. We then ran over the hill to the rental car. I yelled at her, "Where are the keys??". We realized they where back down on the beach in the tent, in my bag. We hesitated and then went back. We grabbed them and were going to leave everything else. After a few moments we calmed down and decided to go back to our things. Then we decided to stay through the night, after my girlfriend started saying that it didn't hurt us and it could have. We decided to stay, and I got the video camera out of the car. I kept the fire going all night, staying up. She didn't make it all night, and fell asleep. I didn't see it again.
As soon as day break came, I took the film camera and took pictures of the footprints, heading both north and south on the beach. Luckily they where not very degraded due to the wind. I followed the tracks and used items and myself to give depth and distance. I noticed the tracks all went to the east at a point. This was the direction I assumed the creature went. After I took several photos of the tracks I ran back to camp.
We left Oregon, drove to Seattle and caught our flight back to Colorado. After a few weeks, I did a bit of research and contacted Richard Greenwell [deceased], of the International Society of Cryptozoology. He interviewed me and had me get in contact with Peter Byrne in Portland. Byrne contacted me and wanted me to come back out and show him the location of the sighting and the trail. I couldn't get back out due to vacation time availability. He found the location and looked around, but nothing was found.
Later that next year, Byrne gave me a call and said "Good Morning America" wanted to do a story on my sighting. I told him I could not, due to my employment position. He assured me that I would be off-camera, and they would only use a voice-over. I agreed to do the interview. My girlfriend, who was a deputy sheriff, decided to stay far away from the media, in case things got out on identity. I reluctantly agreed to do the interview. I did this also to help Peter Byrne, so he could possibly get some funding for his organization, knowing it would help his cause. Later the tape was aired, showing me on camera and speaking. Not good! ...
Since that time, in 1996, I have been back to this area a few times to look around, but have not contacted anyone else about it. I will be happy to send pics but do not see how to do it here. If you want the entire collection you can contact me.
ALSO NOTICED: It was non violent. It acted like we where nothing. Ignored us it seemed.
OTHER WITNESSES: 2 eating
OTHER STORIES: None to the time of the sighting
TIME AND CONDITIONS: 9:15PM started. Ended around 10 PM.
ENVIRONMENT: Ocean beach
Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Caroline Curtis:
Update:
April 11, 2015 - This report is being updated because the witness, Dan Patino, has provided additional photos and a link to the Good Morning America video, please see below.
------------
Spoke to the witness by phone. Estimated height was 7 1/2 to 8 feet tall. Its speed made it appear to be jogging and its smooth movement resembled a roller skater.
He and his girlfriend stayed the night after all, but he didn't sleep, staying up all night with a video camera. She slept in the car.
In the intervening years he has returned to the area a few times to look around, but has found nothing significant.
Photos were taken with a disposable camera, the attached photo shows the size and depth of the footprints compared to his:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=13653
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 14
STATE: Oregon
COUNTY: Tillamook County
LOCATION DETAILS: [Removed from report]
NEAREST TOWN: Tillamook
NEAREST ROAD: 101
OBSERVED: Back several years ago, I reported this sighting to Peter Byrne, who took it very seriously. I agreed to talk on camera, to "Good Morning America" back in 1996. My conditions were that only my voice would be used, and not my name. They interviewed me, but then showed me completely. I felt betrayed by "Good Morning America".
I and my girlfriend were both in law enforcement at the time. I was, at the time, a US Forest Service Officer (Law Enforcement LVII) and later a police officer. Now I have been out of the field for 3 years, and I want to tell my story and show the photos.
On August 14, 1995, my girlfriend and I were camped on a beach in Oregon, north of Lincoln City and south of Tillamook. We were on vacation, and we were the only people on that beach.
We had a good fire going and dusk was approaching around 21:00 Hours. We were camped on a bluff about 7 ft above the surf and had a clear view of the beach north and south. We were set back on the bluff around 100 ft from the shoreline.
I noticed a figure which I thought was a person, standing south of us on the beach, I guess around 100 yards from our location, standing near the shoreline, looking in our direction. At that distance I thought it was strange the person was covered in black clothing, so we thought. I was a bit alarmed thinking someone may be planning to harm us. We also thought it was strange because nothing was down the beach except rugged beachline, to at least Lincoln City, 20 Miles to the south. When I lost sight of it I was a bit uneasy, wondering what the person was up to.
Later, we saw the person come back, but not stop. It kept walking in our direction, to a distance of about 50 yards. It stopped, turned around, and headed back to the south. Again, 5 minutes later, the person came back, this time it kept walking to a 90 degree angle to our location, and turned around and headed back south. By now the sun had set but the moon was full or close to it. It was a very bright twilight, with the sand and ocean.
The "person" in question again came back, following closer to the shoreline this time. It walked directly by us and past to the north now. We noticed the person was very large and seemed to be as tall as we were on the bluff. It was jet black and had the forward posture with the long swinging arms. We also noticed the person almost seemed totally uninterested in our presence and looked like it was looking for something on the beach, stopping occasionally and starting up again. The person turned around and went directly back at a quicker pace and headed at a fast walking speed (guessing 4-6 mph) to the south. We were amazed at how unusual the scene was. The pace, the fact the motion was more fluid, and not bouncing as we walk or jog. Also, all black. There was no other color, from head to toe. The head was pointy. The "person" now headed south quickly, and went out of sight.
I grabbed my mag-light and ran down to where my girlfriend told me to stop, so I knew where to look for prints. Just before that point I nearly tripped on a track, and was amazed at how deep it was. It was at least 10 inches down. I pressed down maybe a inch or two at most in the sand as I walked.
I yelled for my girlfriend to come down to see what I was looking at. She reluctantly came down. When she got close she immediately said, "Oh my God!" The tracks where at least 16" long and 10 inches wide. As we were focusing on the tracks, my mag-light went out. I told her not to worry. I had a spare bulb in the back of the flashlight. As I was fumbling to change the bulb, in bright moonlight, she yelled, "It's coming back!" I dropped the bulb in the sand and I just stared as it approached us at a fast rate. From the south, at 100 yards, at a fast clip.
She pulled my arm and tried to drag me back up to camp. I told her I was staying and wanted to find out what it was. She became frantic, screaming, "come on!!" as she headed to camp. I stood there and I was stunned. At a far distance of 80 yards or so, this thing was taller then me, at a level field. As it got closer I started yelling "You better stop! I am going to shoot!" I was unarmed. It kept coming, directly at me, like I didn't exist. Its shoulders seemed to be at least 4-5 ft wide, with no neck. I started to notice hair all over, and started to make out the face. At that point I realized, and I said out loud, "Oh My God, it's not a human!" I couldn't move for a moment. When I got control again I ran like hell, toward my girlfriend, who was screaming, "Run!" I ran fast, thinking it was coming for me.
I got to the top, and was happy to see it kept walking past where I had been standing. It walked beyond where I was standing, then turned around and walked back to the south, out of sight. We then ran over the hill to the rental car. I yelled at her, "Where are the keys??". We realized they where back down on the beach in the tent, in my bag. We hesitated and then went back. We grabbed them and were going to leave everything else. After a few moments we calmed down and decided to go back to our things. Then we decided to stay through the night, after my girlfriend started saying that it didn't hurt us and it could have. We decided to stay, and I got the video camera out of the car. I kept the fire going all night, staying up. She didn't make it all night, and fell asleep. I didn't see it again.
As soon as day break came, I took the film camera and took pictures of the footprints, heading both north and south on the beach. Luckily they where not very degraded due to the wind. I followed the tracks and used items and myself to give depth and distance. I noticed the tracks all went to the east at a point. This was the direction I assumed the creature went. After I took several photos of the tracks I ran back to camp.
We left Oregon, drove to Seattle and caught our flight back to Colorado. After a few weeks, I did a bit of research and contacted Richard Greenwell [deceased], of the International Society of Cryptozoology. He interviewed me and had me get in contact with Peter Byrne in Portland. Byrne contacted me and wanted me to come back out and show him the location of the sighting and the trail. I couldn't get back out due to vacation time availability. He found the location and looked around, but nothing was found.
Later that next year, Byrne gave me a call and said "Good Morning America" wanted to do a story on my sighting. I told him I could not, due to my employment position. He assured me that I would be off-camera, and they would only use a voice-over. I agreed to do the interview. My girlfriend, who was a deputy sheriff, decided to stay far away from the media, in case things got out on identity. I reluctantly agreed to do the interview. I did this also to help Peter Byrne, so he could possibly get some funding for his organization, knowing it would help his cause. Later the tape was aired, showing me on camera and speaking. Not good! ...
Since that time, in 1996, I have been back to this area a few times to look around, but have not contacted anyone else about it. I will be happy to send pics but do not see how to do it here. If you want the entire collection you can contact me.
ALSO NOTICED: It was non violent. It acted like we where nothing. Ignored us it seemed.
OTHER WITNESSES: 2 eating
OTHER STORIES: None to the time of the sighting
TIME AND CONDITIONS: 9:15PM started. Ended around 10 PM.
ENVIRONMENT: Ocean beach
Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Caroline Curtis:
Update:
April 11, 2015 - This report is being updated because the witness, Dan Patino, has provided additional photos and a link to the Good Morning America video, please see below.
------------
Spoke to the witness by phone. Estimated height was 7 1/2 to 8 feet tall. Its speed made it appear to be jogging and its smooth movement resembled a roller skater.
He and his girlfriend stayed the night after all, but he didn't sleep, staying up all night with a video camera. She slept in the car.
In the intervening years he has returned to the area a few times to look around, but has found nothing significant.
Photos were taken with a disposable camera, the attached photo shows the size and depth of the footprints compared to his:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=13653
- Status